Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Newzbin Usenet Indexer Liable For Copyright Infringement

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the sorry-about-your-luck dept.

Piracy 168

An anonymous reader writes "The world's most popular Usenet indexing site, Newzbin, has been trounced in London's High Court by the movie studios. Held liable for the infringements of its users, later this week Newzbin will be subjected to an injunction which will force it to filter out illegal copies of movies from its NZB index. From the article: 'Newzbin’s help guides were referred to in the decision. They state that the site can help people find what they're looking for, "whether that be obscure music, tv shows, games or movies. Think of us as a TV guide, but we're a guide that applies to Usenet." ... Newzbin has members called "editors" who help to compile reports on material to be found on Usenet. Newzbin's own documentation was used to show that the site encouraged editors to post links to movies. The verdict notes that to assist editors useful links to IMDb and VCDQuality are provided, the latter being useful to provide information about "screeners."'"

cancel ×

168 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Be wary of where you are. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31659416)

The first rule of fight club is don't talk about fight club. Well, unless you're The Pirate Bay [thepiratebay.org] .

Somebody violated the first rule of usenet (4, Insightful)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659424)

Time to migrate to a new protocol. What's next, FTP?

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet (4, Funny)

Brett Buck (811747) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659490)

Gopher!

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet (1)

jgagnon (1663075) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659652)

A return to Gopher would be an improvement for a good portion of the HTML space.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659856)

I liked Gopher. Right hand fingers on the arrow keys and left hand thumb on the space bar. Flying through the internet at the speed of light. gopher rocked.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659884)

It's possible to make websites act as fast as gopher, if you strip away all the garbage and focus on plain text plus maybe 1 or 2 GIF ads (to pay the bills).

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31659682)

You mean, SFTP, right??

Those who download copyrighted content via NNTP are simply hiding by obscurity. Most of the public doesn't know about NNTP nor is it a "simple" (simple as in guntella, .torrent) method of file sharing. I personally believe that the RIAA/MPAA went after the wrong protocol by attacking torrent and P2P networks when all along those who "know" know that if you want to kill the beast you need to cut off the head (or in this case, the backbone). NNTP also allows for advanced encryption schemes and large amounts of bandwidth. It's a pirate's haven.

The issue with attacking NNTP has been that those who run NNTP services don't control the content whatsoever. They aren't held responsible for what's uploaded to their servers, and I think this is a fundamental issue with regarding net-neutrality.

Usenet is sort of a micro-chasm of the entire internet. Servers host files and peers download and upload data as needed. The servers, in this case, represent the free internet. Unregulated. This is the beginning of effective attempts by the RIAA/MPAA to get their proverbial hands into the Usenet system and restrict it. They'll start on the outside and work their way in to core services, all in the name of protecting "American IP" (read: profits).

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet (4, Interesting)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659952)

The issue with attacking NNTP has been that those who run NNTP services don't control the content whatsoever. They aren't held responsible for what's uploaded to their servers, and I think this is a fundamental issue with regarding net-neutrality.

What? NNTP servers store the content, while bittorrent servers (both the torrent files repositories and the trackers) never do. In fact, if you decouple the .torrent file sharing from the tracker, you can have trackers that know nothing about the content, not even the torrent name (only some hashes) [openbittorrent.com] , or even trackerless torrents [lifehacker.com] .

Bittorrent is much harder to stop; the only way to do it is to convince each ISP to implement DPI filters and play cat and mouse with the developers of bittorrent clients, and it'll only end if they basically turn the Internet into TV 2.0.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet (4, Insightful)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660354)

The thing is, with usenet only the uploaders are really committing a serious infringement (and even then only once).

The downloaders are pretty much clean (from serious trouble).

In what we call P2P sharing, the down-loaders are also uploading multiple copies too, causing them to be easy to sue seriously.

It is much easier to pick on the littlest guys (end users), and P2P let them do that.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet (4, Interesting)

harl (84412) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660896)

In what we call P2P sharing, the down-loaders are also uploading multiple copies too, causing them to be easy to sue seriously.

But can you prove that in court? If you send someone 99.9% of a torrent will they be able to watch the movie? If it's rared they won't even be able to open it.

You didn't make a copy. Oh you copied part of it? How does that work without making use of the digit 1 infringement against every copyrighted work ever?

With BT style P2P it's possible to never send anyone the full work. This includes the original seeder. How have you made a copy at that point?

It's a legal loophole. No one makes a copy yet everyone ends up with a copy. There's no law against possession of an illegally made copy the only crime is illegally making a copy.

This is why they had to create the secondary crime of contributing to or accessory to copyright infringement.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661088)

Modern stream formats are pretty resilient. If you send someone 50% of a movie, about half of what they get will be somewhat watchable. If you send them 99%, they will notice a little bit of corruption here or there.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet (5, Insightful)

amorsen (7485) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661100)

You believe you can circumvent the law by technical means. It doesn't work like that. Copying part of a work isn't a defence; you're still trying to share it.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661104)

It doesn't matter the nuances. You are defending a serious charge, not a petty one.

You can argue those nuances all you want, I pay $.20 / GB to not have that risk (though lightning has been demonstrated to me more likely to strike me).

While you try to defend that your distribution of 50% of a work to someone is not distribution, I can never distribute and support the network in other ways.

Also, we all know that you're .rar'ed .torrent is a scam and almost certainly non-infringing (well, you'll give me a password if I visit your website...)

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31661240)

You are defending a serious charge, not a petty one.

Copyright infringment is a petty charge considered serious by american dumbasses and their uk lackeys.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661338)

it's not a legal loophole.
If I'm a publisher and I only print half of some book and sell it without permission from the copyright holder I'm still fucking with their copyright.
Yes yes 1 bit is not infringement but 20 pages certainly is and if I'm getting a book off bittorrent chances are I'll upload a decent portion of the book while I'm downloading it.

It's the same silliness where people claim it isn't infringing if you send someone an encrypted copyrighted work since without the password it's useless. etc etc etc.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31660774)

I know I'm posting as AK..but I posted the comment you replied to.

I said

The issue with attacking NNTP has been that those who run NNTP services don't control the content whatsoever. They aren't held responsible for what's uploaded to their servers, and I think this is a fundamental issue with regarding net-neutrality.

I never said anything about "storing" the content...I said what I said. NNTP providers do not control the content nor have they been held responsible for what's been uploaded to their servers. This is true. I believe you thought I said something about storing content...you're mistaken.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661102)

If they store it, how can you say they don't control it?

If you mean they can't be persecuted legally because it's all automatic and they don't manually accept the files, that's absurd because TPB didn't manage the files manually either, nor did they store the content, and yet they were convicted for it.

Since they actually control and store the content (while they may not manage it manually), they'll have to take it down if they get DMCA emails, or can be prosecuted on any European country for illegal distribution of content.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet (4, Insightful)

arkhan_jg (618674) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659698)

There's nothing wrong with the protocol. Newzbin are an indexing site; one of many. In their case, they provided a commercial service for hand-categorized nzbs, which are pretty analogous to .torrent files, from a legal point of view at least. That they had categories labelled up for 'screener', 'R5', 'Warez' etc etc along with the documentation explicitly advising editors how to post infringing material.

What's interesting is that they've not been threatened with shut down or massive fines yet, unlike the pirate bay; as far as I'm aware, contributory infringement [chillingeffects.org] is illegal in the UK.

So while Newsbin's nzb files will live on as the standard method of collating binary files on usenet, the site itself is destined to be filtered into 'uselessness' (see mininova) even if it isn't shut down with a followup judgement. I expect a number of other indexing sites to spring up, and a number of the existing ones to grow larger - probably hosted in countries that aren't quite so pro-copyright holders as the UK, especially if they don't have contributory copyright infringement laws common in the US and western Europe.

Two thoughts spring to mind;
1) will they get a copy of users search history (complete with creditcard logs linking them to the account)? (and no, I've never been a member)
2) when do they start going after the usenet providers themselves?

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet (4, Informative)

BarryJacobsen (526926) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659870)

1) will they get a copy of users search history (complete with creditcard logs linking them to the account)? (and no, I've never been a member)

This was posted on Newzbin a while back:

Server logs and user activity Some subscribers are a little concerned about privacy in the light of the current litigation so to put their minds at rest we thought we would explain what the privacy implications are of our logs. We are currently keeping webserver logs for a period which is sufficient to allow us to defend ourselves against web attacks. However we cannot tell from our logs what NZBs you have downloaded. At all. If we can't do this then neither can any complainant with access to our logs. Furthermore we rotate old logs so that they are deleted. No request has been made for our logs during the discovery phase of litigation and due to the nature of the legal process that request would have to have been made a long time ago: it wasn't. They cannot now, legally, have it; and moreover they dont actually seem that interested either. The fact is this: they are gunning for Newzbin not you. Bottom line: We cannot tell anyone what NZBs you have been using whether those are for Linux distros, porn or just embarrassing lawful material. Don't worry.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31660540)

hahahaha.
yes, I REALLY believe a load of bullshit posted on some pirate site about it not keeping logs.
what a fucking joke.
Of course they keep logs.
About time scumbags like these who leech from content producers got a sever smacking by the courts. I hope everyone involevd with the sites is bankrupted for the rest of their lives.
They didn't give a fuck about those of us who make original content, so we dont give a fuck about them.
Put a fucking bullet through their heads for all I care. But don't forget to upload the video of those thieving cunts getting slaughtered on youtube for me to laugh at.
hahaha

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet (1)

Jonmash (1323681) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661246)

FYI, newzbin had over 700,000 members. It is very likely that one (or more) of your friends is a member. Would you like them to be shot in the head? Now STFU and get on with your life.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet (2, Interesting)

GeckoAddict (1154537) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660626)

Plus, they already got the logs from NSA.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31661084)

ohhh nsa knows i downloaded a nzb (not illegal) file. that does not link to proof of a copyright violation

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659990)

See my post below - afaik this judgement applies only to movies that MPA members hold the copyright to and not to other movies or, indeed, other media.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet (1)

ArundelCastle (1581543) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660138)

2) when do they start going after the usenet providers themselves?

Hard to say, but they'll probably stop once they find government servers that have a Usenet feed.

alt.iron.margaret.thatcher.fist.fist.fist

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet (1)

value_added (719364) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660930)

Newzbin are an indexing site; one of many.

Worth pointing out that some of the larger usenet providers also index their content and make it available for searches. Hell, even the makers of Newsbin (the client program of a similar name) does it and sells it to customers for a $5/month.

I guess Rule No. 1 for usenet providers is don't base your business model on a tarted-up search. For everyone else, terrabytes of "data" will continue to be posted to usenet on a daily basis. Finding what you want may be a little less convenient.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet (1)

xtracto (837672) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659780)

... [sourceforge.net]

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31660350)

'...' has not updated since 2007. When I tried it then, it didn't work very well (very slow). Has the network improved along with the number of users ?

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet (1, Insightful)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660058)

How about actually buying the work that you want?

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31660214)

Considering that Newzbin is a service you have to pay for, and that quality Usenet providers also cost money, I don't think the limitation here is people being willing to pay for access to the media they like. Indeed, the vast majority of people are indeed willing to pay... the sticking point is about accessing it in the way you want, and it being at a reasonable price.

Obviously "reasonable" means something different to different people. But, again, the very fact that Newzbin turns a profit shows that there is a demographic of people willing to pay for easy, convenient access to media, who currently are not given a legal way to do so. This doesn't make what they are doing "right"... but it certainly suggests that the current market prices and distribution modes (e.g. DRM) are not optimal.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet (2, Insightful)

dwandy (907337) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660358)

How about actually buying the work that you want?

...didn't know that was an option. They all look like licensing or rental deals to me. Actual ownership seems to be something that won't be conferred to the serfs.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31661524)

RTFA. We're talking about movies here, not music. Even if you buy it, if you also want to watch it, then you still need to either remove the DRM or pirate it.

If it's just DVDs, removing the DRM is fine. It's illegal in many countries but it's easy and you won't ever get caught. But as soon as you start talking about Blu-Rays, removing the DRM is enough of a pain in the ass that you might as well pirate it. And once you've decided to pirate it, I think most people will then stop and say, "Wait, if I have to pirate it, why bother to pay for it?"

Buying it and pirating it aren't really exclusive whenever DRM is involved; in fact you'd expect a lot of overlap. It's just that, for most users, you also wouldn't expect the overlap to last very long.

"How about buying it?" Been there, done that, it didn't help. DRM => Piracy.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet (3, Insightful)

t0p (1154575) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660184)

The protocol isn't the problem. The problem is someone profiting from the online availability of "infringing" material. It's very difficult to portray yourself as a "content-agnostic" search engine merely enabling users to share files when you're turning over £1 million a year.

What I find a little unsettling is the judge's critcism of Newzbin's takedown procedures. From TFA:

Newzbin was also criticized for its “delisting” or notice and takedown procedures, which were referred to as a “cosmetic” and “cumbersome” mechanism designed to “render it impractical” for rights holders to have material removed.

While I have no personal knowledge of how "cumbersome" the procedure is, I don't see why it shouldn't be "cumbersome". If an alleged rights-holder wants his alleged material removed from the index, why shouldn't he have to jump through a few hoops? Why shouldn't the alleged rights-holder have to prove definitively that he owns the rights he claims? If the takedown procedure were too streamlined and gave the alleged rights-holder too much benefit of the doubt we could end up with a situation where any tom dick or harry could make malicious complaints about content they don't own just to cause trouble for the site. I can't just point at any car I like the look of, say "that's mine" and get the police to drag the driver out through the window.

Re:Somebody violated the first rule of usenet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31661418)

how about you actually stop ripping off the people who make original content and open your fucjing wallet you sad little tight-ass freeloader?

It has begun (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31659444)

Finally usenet showed up on the radar.

Shame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31659460)

This is bad!
Time to look into p2p via i2p etc.
I always liked the social aspects of sharing via p2p.

Violation of the second rule (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31659478)

1. Don't talk about Usenet.
2. Don't index Usenet.

This might lead to less people complaining about rar files in their torrents.

The Pirate Barge? (1)

ground.zero.612 (1563557) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659502)

So, who's with me? I can offer my skills and craftsmanship in constructing the datacenter bays, but I admit my passion lies in defense (I have several working designs for Phalanx style turrets, as well as mortar and rocket launchers).

We should attempt to procure some satcom equipment, or worst case scenario some microwave/radioLAN gear. Seriously, who's with me?! YARRRRRRRR!

Intent (2, Interesting)

GPLDAN (732269) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659504)

Isohunt is treading the same line, you can go to Isohunt's main page and read up on the legal fights. Much of it has to do with the perception that it is actively aiding users in finding or distributing illegal content. It's the equivalent, here in Chicago, to the old Maxwell Street market. Everybody knew if you lost your hubcaps, you went to Maxwell Street to buy them back. But as long as the street organizers themselves kept up some semblance of actual legit commerce, they city turned a blind eye.

http://home.netcom.com/~cowdery/maxwell/mamoser.html [netcom.com]

In this case, Usenet contains what I affectionately call a "Rared Sale" (get it?) - where everything is less than a quarter. In fact, it's free! And as long as we all remember the First Rule of Usenet: Nobody talks about Usenet, then it's all fine. Apparently, these blokes forgot that rule.

Re:Intent (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659628)

If Isohunt disappears, where can I go to find my NapisyPL tv show rips?

Back to article - No need to kill Usenet. Just go back to the old system of sharing information directly from one sysop's computer to another sysop's computer, and then have the info filtered downward to the local users' computers.

Re:Intent (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659840)

Actually, Newzbin -is- actively helping. They have 'editors' that go through the raw data and form indexed downloads manually and filter out serial numbers.

I'm not condemning the service, just saying that it's not 100% passive like Google or isoHunt.

Re:Intent (0)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659922)

How is isoHunt passive? People post the links to the content that isoHunt indexes. It's not automatic.

Re:Intent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31660456)

There is a very strange concept about being a "notifier". If Bob is selling drugs on the corner of 5th and Main, and you whisper that information to people as they walk by, you are considered a part of the problem and encouraging the promotion and selling of the drugs. If you hold a sign up that states "OMG, the horror, that Bob guy on the corner of 5th and Main is selling drugs!, it must be stopped, same your children", you are treated with respect and encouraged to continue your crusade to clean up the streets. The bottom line though is with BOTH methods, you are doing the same exact thing. Letting people know that if you want drugs, see Bob on the corner of 5th and main. Your opinion or your approach of doing it is not relevant. You are still disseminating the same information and people that want drugs can take that information and go to Bob.

was only a matter of time.. (1)

BitwiseX (300405) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659564)

But as usual the cart is put in front of the horse.

I could take my house off of every map in existence.. and you'll still be able to find my house if you've been there.
If you don't going to go after illegal content, go after ILLEGAL CONTENT! If the content is there it will be found.. no matter how many signs and arrows to it you remove.

Here we go again..

Standard Arguments: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31659568)

A: Someone should go after (insert_search_engine)!
B: No, that's silly. (insert_search_engine) is a common carrier!
C: Negative. Common carrier status applies to ISPs.
D: Well, fundamentally, search engines should be common carriers and get protection.
E: Who cares? You people at Slashdot make me sick. You cover for the pirates. Why don't you respect copyright.
F: Copyright is too long. Take it back to a reasonable time, then people won't pirate like this. 10-15 years max.
G: Streisand Effect.

There we go, got most of my bases covered.

Re:Standard Arguments: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31659804)

There we go, got most of my bases covered.

Maybe so. But who does your base belong to?

Re:Standard Arguments: (3, Informative)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659950)

ISPs aren't and never have been common carriers. This is a widespread falsity spread around by Slashdotters.

Re:Standard Arguments: (2, Informative)

BlueParrot (965239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661502)

ISPs aren't and never have been common carriers. This is a widespread falsity spread around by Slashdotters.

This may be true for the specific "common carrier" legal status used in the US. In Europe quite a few countries employ similar principles, though I believe the term "mere conduit" is more frequently used than "common carrier". I'm not completely sure what the EU directives say about it, but ISPs here are generally very skeptical to filtering content precisely because they don't want to be made liable for what they carry, and from the leaks about ACTA it appears one of the main objections from the EU is that they don't want to make ISPs responsible for what users do.

One exception is the United Kingdom, which more or less seems to have volunteered to beta test Orwellian stuff before the US deploys it. Even there, however, the ISPs have recently cried foul at government plans to implement copyright enforcement on the ISP level.

Recommendations for an Indexing service? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31659580)

I'm interested in signing up with one of these Usenet indexing services. I see there are a bunch out there, so can anyone with experience give some recommendations for one that's still accepting new members, and reasonably priced?

Re:Recommendations for an Indexing service? (4, Funny)

bds1986 (1268378) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659712)

Nice try, MPAA.

HA! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31659738)

Nice try, MPAA!

Re:Recommendations for an Indexing service? (0, Flamebait)

Inda (580031) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660954)

"Hi, my name is Mark and I'm a member of the Noob foundation. I would really, really, really like a website that provides me with the Warez (War-rez). I have money for friends."

Are you for real AC? Who the hell under 50 writes like that? On Slashdot of all places?

Use a search engine, and scene release (whatever that is) indexing site. Newsbin was overrated.

Help guides refer to COPYRIGHTED movie downloads? (0)

TheDarkener (198348) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659612)

Just because it's a movie doesn't mean the MPAA owns it. Did the help guides specifically say they help you find MPAA owned/copyrighted movies, or just movies in general? I'd hate to think the whole world has forgotten that a "movie" itself is an art form, not just an MPAA dropping subject to fees and copyrights.

Re:Help guides refer to COPYRIGHTED movie download (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31659728)

Please show me one non-MPAA owned/controlled movie company that has ever lobbied
or even attempted(*) to change the minds of politicians or those in power.

(*) using money as its the only language they care about.

Re:Help guides refer to COPYRIGHTED movie download (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31659850)

What's your point? Lobbying is irrelevant to the ownership of rights to a movie.

Re:Help guides refer to COPYRIGHTED movie download (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31659928)

Simple question:

And of those movies, how many are being downloaded that are not being distributed on your service without the permission of the copyright owner? What proportion? Would it be a majority?

That's all a lawyer has to think to ask.

Re:Help guides refer to COPYRIGHTED movie download (0)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660044)

But...but...they're just sharing Linux ISOs and public domain movies!! Pay no attention to the fact 99.9% of the listings are for movies from MPAA members!

Re:Help guides refer to COPYRIGHTED movie download (1)

TheDarkener (198348) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660152)

All of these responses are invalid. This has to do with the fact that Usenet indexing services are agnostic to the content being indexed (I.E. They are not biased toward copyrighted material vs. non-copyrighted material).

Re:Help guides refer to COPYRIGHTED movie download (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660336)

So they are invalid because it points out for all to see the huge whole in your argument? Besides, anyone who has been to Newzbin can clearly see that there is a huge bias towards indexing copyrighted material. Or do you actually have proof to the contrary?

Re:Help guides refer to COPYRIGHTED movie download (1)

BarryJacobsen (526926) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660492)

So they are invalid because it points out for all to see the huge whole in your argument? Besides, anyone who has been to Newzbin can clearly see that there is a huge bias towards indexing copyrighted material. Or do you actually have proof to the contrary?

There would only be a bias towards indexing copyrighted material if the ratio of [copyrighted indexed]/[copyrighted available on usenet] is greater than [non-copyrighted indexed]/[non-copyrighted available on usenet]. Otherwise they are just faithfully indexing what is there.

Re:Help guides refer to COPYRIGHTED movie download (-1, Flamebait)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660612)

Are you stupid?

It sure as fuck looks that way. Do you understand what the word bias means? Do you know that it doesnt mean popular?

Now. If you arent fucking stupid, explain why it is that you look stupid.

Re:Help guides refer to COPYRIGHTED movie download (1)

TheDarkener (198348) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660634)

So they are invalid because it points out for all to see the huge whole in your argument? Besides, anyone who has been to Newzbin can clearly see that there is a huge bias towards indexing copyrighted material. Or do you actually have proof to the contrary?

1) No, they are invalid because the indexing services are UNBIASED. Stop trying to spin the argument. I'm being factual here, I'm not trying to persuade.

2) "...anyone who has been to Newzbin can clearly see that..." This is the same bullshit wordage I hear on the news. Again, I'm not trying to persuade your opinion of what content actually IS on Newzbin. I'm arguing that it isn't Newzbin's fault. They are an indexing service. It is the users themselves who upload the copyrighted material. The users are responsible for the law breaking. Not the medium.

---
If this was actually enforceable, why not go after TDK, Maxell and Sony for selling 100-CD/DVD-R spindles? I mean, seriously, who really uses 100 CDs/DVDs for anything BUT copying RIAA music and MPAA movies?

Right? Right??

Re:Help guides refer to COPYRIGHTED movie download (0)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660016)

Did the help guides specifically say they help you find MPAA owned/copyrighted movies, or just movies in general?

Which is a meaningless distinction when pretty all of them (I'm sure it would be safe to say 99.9+%) are from MPAA members. I can't tell if you're either extremely naive or just intentionally stupid. This is almost as laughable as when everyone tries to make it seem like bittorrent is only being used to transfer Linux ISOs and public domain movies/music.

Re:Help guides refer to COPYRIGHTED movie download (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31660452)

He's a whore, he's a whore
forever more a whore
he's a whore, he's a whore
slurping down MPAA semen with fervor
he's a whore, he's a whore
he wants to get with J-Lo
but instead he gets rush limbaugh
he's a whore, he's a whore, he's a whoooooore!

(sing it to any show tune you like)

Re:Help guides refer to COPYRIGHTED movie download (1)

westlake (615356) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661406)

Just because it's a movie doesn't mean the MPAA owns it.

The MPAA is a trade association. It doesn't "own" anything." Members are drawn form the "big six" studios"

20th Century Fox
Walt Disney
Sony Pictures
Paramount (Viacom)
Universal
Warner

But you'll most likely discover the independent studio has signed on to the MPAA's rating and title registration services. You can't copyright a title, but you can protect it by contract.

Pointless fight (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31659736)

The more you tighten your grip, Shapiro, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.

The shutdown of freedom, need for adhoc internet (1)

assemblerex (1275164) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659802)

Splintering the internet by language(check) ban of proxies(in the works) usenet targeted for destruction (suspected)
Money and bought politicians will strive to plug any holes in the internet beyond government control.
This is why adhoc wireless is so important.

Re:The shutdown of freedom, need for adhoc interne (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31659918)

Why do you advocate whimsically breaking the law? Shouldn't you advocate pushing for change, instead?

Re:The shutdown of freedom, need for adhoc interne (-1, Flamebait)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660050)

So then you have no problems with people violating the copyrights to GPL code, right? How dare you advocate that the government controls my ability to take whatever I want from whomever I want!

Re:The shutdown of freedom, need for adhoc interne (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31660594)

Thank you for the suddenoutbreakofcommonsense. +1

Damnit!! (1)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659824)

I switched to a paid Usenet service because it was more "private" than torrent. Does this mean I'm going to have to back to BitchX and CLI to get movies?

/dcc send MPAA "my ass"

Re:Damnit!! (2, Informative)

Killer Orca (1373645) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659942)

I switched to a paid Usenet service because it was more "private" than torrent. Does this mean I'm going to have to back to BitchX and CLI to get movies?

/dcc send MPAA "my ass"

No, this is only an indexer of .nzb files, which are analogous to .torrent files; it was also a pay site, there are others out there that are free or automated with ssl connections, so I hear.

You may want to upgrade to an SSL connection though if you are worried, the ISP logs will still show you connecting to a usenet provider, but what you are downloading will not be discernible.

Re:Damnit!! (1)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660004)

If they succeed in making this indexer "play ball", does this not set the precedence for all other indexers? I don't use Newzbin so this currently doesn't affect me but could it possibly down the line?

Thanks for the SSL recommendation BTW, I will check that today.

Re:Damnit!! (2, Informative)

BarryJacobsen (526926) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660102)

If they succeed in making this indexer "play ball", does this not set the precedence for all other indexers? I don't use Newzbin so this currently doesn't affect me but could it possibly down the line?

Thanks for the SSL recommendation BTW, I will check that today.

Newzbin is unique (as far as I know) in that it has people (editors) create the "reports" which indicate which files are what. Other services that exist don't use people and use an AI to try to determine what each file/post is. It appears it's Newzbin's help documentation for the editors that got them in trouble.

Re:Damnit!! (2, Interesting)

bit9 (1702770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660272)

Using SSL is definitely a step up, but of course, even this won't help you if the MPAA gets a judge to issue an order forcing your Usenet provider to log all of its users' downloads. I use a paid Usenet service as well, and my concern is that my provider will someday be slapped with such an order, along with a gag order to prevent them from warning their users about the logging.

I'm thinking maybe, at long last, the writing is on the wall for Usenet - at least as far as me using it is concerned. I have too much to lose (job,assets), and too many people depending on me (wife, kids). It's just not worth the risk anymore. No matter how much I despise the MPAA, RIAA, etc, the obsolete business models of the companies they represent, and their strong-arm tactics, I stand to lose FAR more than I stand to gain. I will continue to donate to the EFF, but no more Usenet downloads for me - not even the non-infringing variety.

Re:Damnit!! (1)

BarryJacobsen (526926) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660518)

Using SSL is definitely a step up, but of course, even this won't help you if the MPAA gets a judge to issue an order forcing your Usenet provider to log all of its users' downloads. I use a paid Usenet service as well, and my concern is that my provider will someday be slapped with such an order, along with a gag order to prevent them from warning their users about the logging.

I'm thinking maybe, at long last, the writing is on the wall for Usenet - at least as far as me using it is concerned. I have too much to lose (job,assets), and too many people depending on me (wife, kids). It's just not worth the risk anymore. No matter how much I despise the MPAA, RIAA, etc, the obsolete business models of the companies they represent, and their strong-arm tactics, I stand to lose FAR more than I stand to gain. I will continue to donate to the EFF, but no more Usenet downloads for me - not even the non-infringing variety.

My understanding is that in every single trial where someone has been prosecuted it was for uploading (due to the fact that copyright restricts the ability of one to create a copy which would be uploading) which is automatically done in P2P environments. When using USENET (as long as you are not posting), you are only downloading.

Re:Damnit!! (1)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660724)

That's exactly the reason I switched to Usenet. My wife complains about the $14.99 per month, but at least I'm not forced into uploading even part of the files like I am though torrent. The downside is that I have to constantly check and repair the files I get from Usenet with quickpar. Still...it provides at least some peice of mind. That and the fact that I've also started using PeerBlock.

Re:Damnit!! (1)

bit9 (1702770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661172)

My understanding is that in every single trial where someone has been prosecuted it was for uploading (due to the fact that copyright restricts the ability of one to create a copy which would be uploading) which is automatically done in P2P environments. When using USENET (as long as you are not posting), you are only downloading.

That may be, but I no longer feel comfortable that being a "download-only" user is sufficient to keep me safe from potentially ruinous lawsuits. Joel Tennenbaum's case [wikipedia.org] was a real wake-up call for me.

Yes, Tennenbaum also uploaded songs, and yes, he was stupid enough to admit to it. However, we're talking about 31 songs here. The RIAA was more than willing to ruin this man's life for a measly 31 songs! Do you really think they only went after him because he had also uploaded those 31 songs? Clearly, they wanted to make an example of him, to scare people like me away from downloading OR uploading copyrighted music.

It worked. I no longer find the reward of free music (or movies or e-books or whatever) worth the risk of having my life ruined, no matter how remote that possibility might be. NOT TO MENTION what it would do to my wife and kids. I am my family's sole provider, and the kind of work I do requires extensive background checks. Something like this (what happened to Tennenbaum) would totally ruin me and my family. For what? So I can watch some stupid movie right now rather than having to wait a whole 2 days for Netflix to send it to me? Pardon my language, but FUCK THAT!

Re:Damnit!! (1)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660760)

Is it possible that my ISP is blocking port 563? That's the port I have to use for SSL. When I configure my client to use that port (provided to me by the newsgroup) it will not connect.

Re:Damnit!! (1)

muppetman462 (867367) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659958)

Umm....No.....only thing is doing is messing up a great service. I wonder if the MPAA is going to go after Google now because you can search for nzb files via google......

Re:Damnit!! (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660082)

Yeah, except for that tiny and important deal that Google's indexer is completely passive while this was a site that was recruiting people to actively go out and provide the links that their site indexed.

Re:Damnit!! (1)

harl (84412) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660976)

How exactly is a central server log recording every single file you download private? Additionally you now have a nice financial trail making things eve less private.

Finally... (1)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659838)

We will get you pirates and prove that Global Warming is a hoax, once and for all!!!

Either that or we'll finally kill off Usenet - win-win, either way.

Right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31659866)

so I need a replacement.

Anyone?

Re:Right (1)

Per Wigren (5315) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660054)

Take the blue pill...

Limited scope (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 4 years ago | (#31659962)

As far as I can tell from the limited information available and still pending the final injunction details, this judgement only applies to movies and not any other content that may or may not be indexed on Usenet.

At least the judge showed sense in ruling that the MPA couldn't get an injection banning the publishing of content that they didn't hold the copyright to; I know they like to think that they control everything, but sometimes reality gets in the way.

its only a matter of time.. (1)

zcold (916632) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660100)

Whats next? Rapidshare, megaupload etc... Funny how there are so many sites outside of those as well... What a waste of time and money... The best way to get people to do something is to tell them they can't...All this litigation is working well for piracy..

Revolt! (1)

chucklebutte (921447) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660190)

Time to get our asses up out of our computer chairs and fight back!

Over throw the government! Over throw the corporations! Fuck these idiots!

When will people learn (1)

Snaller (147050) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660342)

or - why are people are so stupid.

If you write about breaking the law on your site, you are going to get nailed soon or later.

We've seen that again and again - its not that they are overlooking you, its that THEY are overworked and haven't gotten around to you yet.

I don't get it. (2, Interesting)

gillbates (106458) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660386)

Not all movies are illegal. Some don't contain "objectionable content". Some - mostly the kind I'm rediscovering - have elapsed the protection of copyright.

What sites like Newzbin do is provide a central repository for content owners to search for infringing content. If I had my book/movie/video game being pirated, believe me, I would find sites like this very helpful in shutting down the uploaders. At least, those within the relevant legal jurisdiction.

Even the police like an anonymous tip. It's almost as if the content cartels *WANT* you to pirate their content, so they can then sue you for ridiculous amounts of money. (Why get 99 cents a song, when you can get statutory damages of a few hundred thousand dollars?)

Re:I don't get it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31660688)

I haven't read all the case trials, but in the ones I have the defendant was charged the lowest amount possible by copyright law ($750 or $200 per infringement). So it's not exactly a matter of corruption/extortion.

Don't Get Caught, Derp! (5, Funny)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660440)

Honestly, if you're going to base your ENTIRE BUSINESS MODEL around something illegal, don't fucking TALK about that shit! For God's sake! Ok look at Bernie Madoff, he successfully didn't get caught for decades, even when several very smart people were yelling at the FTC that what he was doing had to be fraud! How? He didn't talk about it! When the FTC came 'round and asked "Hey, are you defrauding people" he was all like "No!" and then he made fun of them for even asking and they felt so bad about questioning him about it, they just kind of wandered off.

The wrong way to go about basing your business around illegal stuff would be to, say, have meetings about how everything you're doing is completely illegal and then sending your meeting minutes to the ISO auditors. That always leads to questions like "This bit here about where you're illegally benefiting from copyright infringement... what's that about?" It goes downhill from there.

If you're uncomfortable being compared to Bernie Madoff perhaps you should consider a career in something less illegal. The rest of you, only have meetings about your illegal stuff in the bathroom with the water running and don't keep minutes of those meetings! For fuck's sake... This isn't rocket science people!

This whole discussion should be moot. (0, Troll)

mykos (1627575) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660832)

Defrauding people is and should always be illegal. Communicating ideas to another person should never be illegal, even if the ideas you are communicating to another person are not yours.
If these guys wanted to openly discuss something that should not be illegal, that's fine.
This whole copyright protection debate is just corporate-sponsored Prohibition for the 21st century. It's unenforceable without totalitarian government control.

Re:This whole discussion should be moot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31660962)

And likewise, selectively ignoring laws should never be tolerated. Go start your own country and promote anarchy there; I want nothing to do with it.

Re:This whole discussion should be moot. (1, Flamebait)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661430)

This whole copyright protection debate is just corporate-sponsored Prohibition for the 21st century. It's unenforceable without totalitarian government control

Spoken just like a person who's never created anything in his life, especially for a living. You do realize (right?) that artists, film makers, muscians, writers - anyone who makes something that is covered by copyright law - can waive those rights any time they want. Which means that the actual people you're bitching about aren't The Eeeevil Corporate Publishers, but the artists who make the conscious, deliberate decision to work with a publisher in order to make a living at what they do. Why aren't you complaining about all of the novelists, painters, photographers, illustrators, designers, composers, recording artists and everyone else who creates material being such big supporters of Totalitarianism? Why? Because you know you're being a jackass, that's why.

Communicating ideas to another person should never be illegal

Go ahead! Communicate an idea. But if you're too lazy to have your own ideas to communicate (even your rant, above, is a lazy regurgitation), how about respecting the wishes of the creative person you want to shamelessly parrot? Some of them have agreed to let other people reproduce their work at will, and most have no choice but to allow properly framed "fair use" excerpts to be introduced into academic and journalistic presentations.

Of course you know all of that. You're just looking for some moral cover so that you can rip off porn, comic books, and your favorite Brittany Spears material without feeling so sleazy about it. Too late.

Does Usenet still need tiny size limits on files? (2, Interesting)

nuckfuts (690967) | more than 4 years ago | (#31660928)

The reason that NZB's even exist is that large files uploaded to Usenet get broken up into a ridiculous number of small fragments. It then becomes a chore to locate and reassemble all the pieces.

Bandwidth and storage capacities have increased tremendously over the years that Usenet has been around. Why do people who operate NNTP servers still impose such restrictive limits on file size?

Re:Does Usenet still need tiny size limits on file (2, Informative)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661208)

Because file transfers aren't absolutely reliable. With small file sizes, most of the parts make it from server to server, and people already have a bunch of ways of dealing with a little bit of missing data (use more than 1 provider, par2, etc.).

I imagine the fact that a change would favor new users and irritate (some/many?) established users is also a factor.

Re:Does Usenet still need tiny size limits on file (2, Funny)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661392)

Actually, I think that's an argument in favor of larger post lengths. The less pieces there are, the less filling in you have to do, and the less PAR file downloading you'll need to do to support it.

Re:Does Usenet still need tiny size limits on file (2, Insightful)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31661456)

I guess it depends on how the servers handle a bad transfer; if they discard incomplete files, larger files will carry a larger penalty, if they just post the partial file, there shouldn't be much difference.

I suspect inertia is a primary factor.

presumption (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31661266)

"music, tv shows, games or movies"
public domain, creative commons, gnu gpl, etc.
why is there this presumption that everything out there is under a restrictive license. the big media monopolies are going the way of the dodo. who wants to watch a bunch of propaganda. instead people are focusing on liberally licensed art, documentaries, educational and historic materials, how-tos, important info on death camps of the NWO, etc.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>